De Sousa v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03341
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De Sousa v. Venezuela, Judge Rochon directed the plaintiff to provide more information before deciding how defendants may be served.
The plaintiff must provide a supplemental letter by May 12, 2025; the requested service of Venezuela, FOGADE, and the $6,000,000 in rem defendant remains unresolved.
What happened
De Sousa v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela concerns the plaintiff’s request for permission to serve Venezuela, FOGADE, and the funds held in two accounts under federal rules for serving foreign states and their agencies.
The court directed the plaintiff to file a supplemental letter by May 12, 2025. The letter must address whether the plaintiff tried an earlier service method, clarify which rule the plaintiff proposes for serving Venezuela, and explain whether the court should appoint a specific process server for FOGADE and the funds.
Judge Rochon’s order did not grant or deny the requested service authorization. It required more information before the court takes further action.
The detailed version
- De Sousa v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela · No. 1:25-cv-03341
- Rochon
- May 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiff asked the court to authorize service of the summons and complaint on República Bolivariana de Venezuela under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). The plaintiff also sought authorization to serve Fondo de Protección Social de los Depósitos Bancarios, formerly known as Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos y Protección Bancaria, and the in rem defendant consisting of $6,000,000 held in two Morgan Stanley Smith Barney accounts, under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(b)(3)(C).
What the Court Ordered
The court directed the plaintiff to file a supplemental letter by May 12, 2025 addressing three matters:
- Whether the plaintiff had tried, or determined to be unavailable, the first service method under § 1608(a)(1) for Venezuela and the comparable first method under § 1608(b)(1) for the agency and in rem defendant. The order explained that these service methods are hierarchical, meaning a plaintiff generally must attempt earlier methods before using later ones.
- Whether the plaintiff intended to propose serving Venezuela under § 1608(b)(3)(C), as stated in the proposed order, or whether that reference was a typographical error and the plaintiff instead intended to rely on § 1608(a)(4), as stated in the letter motion.
- Whether the plaintiff asked the court to authorize and appoint a particular process server to deliver the summons, complaint, and translations to FOGADE and the in rem defendant, and, if not, why not.
Disposition and Effect
This order required additional information and did not state that the court granted or denied the plaintiff’s request for service authorization. The order therefore left the requested service authorization unresolved at this stage. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order dated May 6, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.